IN RE GUZMAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANGELINA MAY GUZMAN,
ANNIE MARIE GUZMAN, and ANGEL LE
ANNE GUZMAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 8, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 247473
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-359005
ELLA BROOK MAY, a/k/a ELLA BROOKE
MAY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MIGUEL ANGEL GUZMAN,
Respondent.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I), now MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Protective services had been involved with
respondent-appellant and her children since 1997, and despite provision of services by Families
First and Wraparound in March 2001, the evidence showed that respondent-appellant remained
unable to provide the children with proper housing, food, clothing, dental care, and other basic
necessities. During the sixteen months of these proceedings, respondent-appellant completed
parenting classes, a Clinic for Child Study, and had a legal source of income through SSI, but did
not consistently attend counseling or submit drug screens showing that she was drug-free. Angel
was born cocaine positive. Respondent-appellant’s housing, which was a primary problem since
1997, never became stable. Given respondent-appellant’s cognitive limitations and her inability
-1-
to improve the quality of her care and custody for her children in several years, the trial court did
not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear
and convincing evidence.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The two older children were bonded with respondentappellant, but would not receive even the most basic care if returned to her care.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights
to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
